destruction of america

[frankendat]

16 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 

Not cunt status quite yet. She has a long way to go to fill Killery's boots. For now just a douche. Putin had 45, he won't have 47. This is the party supplying Ukraine. It's academic anyway. Ukraine will be threatening Moscow in a month, Putin will have to deal with that, sue for ceasefire or peace. Might even be a revolt. Russia illegally annexed Crimea, illegally invaded another nation and totally misread everything and got mired down and now invaded for the first time since 41 that's 83 years and on his watch. How's that history lesson Tucker?????

Read her quotes on the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general (she has made some soft "pro" gun statements, but her anti gun rhetoric and her actions show her truth) I forget which political commentator, I think it was Rumble, presented clips of Harris, at different political functions supporting opposite sides of the same issue.

[paradime]

1 hour ago, frankendat said:

Pulp Fiction and Datsuns we are in agreement

All choices for security are based on hypothetical what ifs.

 

I have a law and security pedigree, but won't list it, you are free to disbelieve. I do not know the specifics of your situation and understand firearms are not the best choice for everyone. The decision should be individual and, except for specific, defined, well adjudicated exceptions, not a matter for the government.

 

Since when do you or anyone on Destruction trust the majority?

 

And like that, you lose credibility. Under the guise of "common sense controls" liberty is stolen, rights are dismissed and tyranny reigns. I believe it springs from fear and helplessness. The error is to assume this is the same fear, which drives gun ownership. Admittedly, the emotion is similar, in some aspects identical, but at the core it could not be more different. One prays for a savior, one accepts the responsibility of self reliance. When learning of a shooting or other evil enterprise, one embraces the fantasy screaming "We (meaning someone else) needs to take guns, so I am safe" The other states "I need to get my gun and protect mine." You are the former, I am the latter.

As I have said, there are multiple NRA sites that debunk the "hard statistics" to which you cling and, to be fair, there are sites that debunk the debunkers and on and on. I have debated this most of my adult life and all that is for certain, statistics never change minds. 

The few times, that I have witnessed a change, has come after victimization of crime. As much as, I endeavor to gain support, I do not wish that on anyone and sincerely, hope you prove your statistics and never have need of a firearm.

 

The meaning of HYPOTHETICAL is not based on hard empirical evidence. Instead it's formed by suggested ideas, subjective theory, or CONJECTURE. I based my security choices on objective analysis of statistical probability, my own physical limitations, and dispassionate critical thinking. 

 

As for tyranny

 

Edited August 16 by paradime

[john510]

11 hours ago, frankendat said:

Read her quotes on the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general (she has made some soft "pro" gun statements, but her anti gun rhetoric and her actions show her truth) I forget which political commentator, I think it was Rumble, presented clips of Harris, at different political functions supporting opposite sides of the same issue.

That cunt will say whatever she thinks is right depending on who she's talking to. I heard she's going to curb inflation and lower prices by telling those that supply this country with what we need to just sell everything cheaper. LMAO.

[bottomwatcher]

Same string pullers different Puppet. This one will be even easier to control not dealing with dementia.  Stupidity can be overcome with a screen prompter.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[frankendat]

12 hours ago, paradime said:

 

The meaning of HYPOTHETICAL is not based on hard empirical evidence. Instead it's formed by suggested ideas, subjective theory, or CONJECTURE. I based my security choices on objective analysis of statistical probability, my own physical limitations, and dispassionate critical thinking. 

 

As for tyranny

 

I understand the difference and base my assumptions on facts. Do I need to cite the facts, which demonstrate a continual and persistent attack on the 2nd Amendment? You will then cite the facts, that although on the whole, crime has decreased, gun sales have not and then we can disagree on whether the increase in guns sales contributes to the reduction in crime or is in spite of the reduction in crime, and then you quote some study and I discredit, because it was sponsored by IHATEGUNS.com and I quote some study and you discredit, because it was sponsored by the NRA and round and round we go; that discussion is tedious and I try to avoid it. I would rather focus on the rationale. 

 

As for being a Shepard, without Mr. Browning's glorious 1911, you're not, you're a witness, a victim, or martyr. 

[john510]

20 minutes ago, frankendat said:

I understand the difference and base my assumptions on facts. Do I need to cite the facts, which demonstrate a continual and persistent attack on the 2nd Amendment? You will then cite the facts, that although on the whole, crime has decreased, gun sales have not and then we can disagree on whether the increase in guns sales contributes to the reduction in crime or is in spite of the reduction in crime, and then you quote some study and I discredit, because it was sponsored by IHATEGUNS.com and I quote some study and you discredit, because it was sponsored by the NRA and round and round we go; that discussion is tedious and I try to avoid it. I would rather focus on the rationale. 

 

As for being a Shepard, without Mr. Browning's glorious 1911, you're not, you're a witness, a victim, or martyr. 

It's foolish to believe crime has decreased. Prosecution and reporting crime has decreased. Gun sales are up and that's great news. As hard as they try to get rid of them every new idea they have sells more guns. It's like advertising for your competitors product.

[datzenmike]

1 hour ago, frankendat said:

I understand the difference and base my assumptions on facts. Do I need to cite the facts, which demonstrate a continual and persistent attack on the 2nd Amendment? You will then cite the facts, that although on the whole, crime has decreased, gun sales have not and then we can disagree on whether the increase in guns sales contributes to the reduction in crime or is in spite of the reduction in crime, and then you quote some study and I discredit, because it was sponsored by IHATEGUNS.com and I quote some study and you discredit, because it was sponsored by the NRA and round and round we go; that discussion is tedious and I try to avoid it. I would rather focus on the rationale....

 

 

 

What did I say about equal and opposite facts? Echo chamber with reverb. Might as well wrap yourself in your own fluffy warm opinion and stop trying to get other people to try it on for size. They already have their own and it fits and is just as comfortable.

[Logical1]

This morning I went to put on some music from youtube and right at that moment my adblock decides to update and I get a commercial, It was the father of a child killed in the sandy hook shooting pleading with people to urge congress to ban assault weapons. He then goes on to describe how the shooter used large magazines as to not need to reload so much. He specifically asks to ban the AR15. Here is my question, Being semi-auto and having the ability to use large magazines does my ancient SKS fall under the assault weapons category? Its an old Russian model with a wooden stock, it jams so much I am lucky to get off a full magazine with having to fuck with it, Maybe that is a built in safety feature?🤣 It could also be the shitty Russian rounds I have with steel casings...

[datzenmike]

Why not ban people who are mentally or emotionally retarded and test for cowardliness of police officers when they are hired or stipulate that in a school shooting scenario charge in a stop it. ?

[gh0stwerx76]

 what's everyones opinion on taxing unrealized gains on your home your 401k your stocks bonds your art your car collections etc?

 

[john510]

43 minutes ago, gh0stwerx76 said:

 what's everyones opinion on taxing unrealized gains on your home your 401k your stocks bonds your art your car collections etc?

 

An economy crusher is what that would be. And a great reason to NOT invest for the future. I believe that might be an idea that originated here in California. Ideas like this are why I despise the Democrats. Take, take, take. Newscum actually floated the idea that if you sell your home and leave the state he'll impose an exit tax. I doubt that could hold up in court but who knows. He loves the taxation thing and wonders why businesses and people are leaving the state ? Taking their money with them to be spent and taxed less elsewhere. There aren't enough bad words to describe that asshole.

Edited August 16 by john510

[gh0stwerx76]

18 minutes ago, john510 said:

An economy crusher is what that would be. And a great reason to NOT invest for the future. I believe that might be an idea that originated here in California. Ideas like this are why I despise the Democrats. Take, take, take. Newscum actually floated the idea that if you sell your home and leave the state he'll impose an exit tax. I doubt that could hold up in court but who knows. He loves the taxation thing and wonders why businesses and people are leaving the state ? Taking their money with them to be spent and taxed less elsewhere. There aren't enough bad words to describe that asshole.

This is worth a listen then. https://youtu.be/JoH0FAWIIT4

cuz this is left leadership intent according to these dudes.

[paradime]

33 minutes ago, frankendat said:

I understand the difference and base my assumptions on facts. Do I need to cite the facts, which demonstrate a continual and persistent attack on the 2nd Amendment? You will then cite the facts, that although on the whole, crime has decreased, gun sales have not and then we can disagree on whether the increase in guns sales contributes to the reduction in crime or is in spite of the reduction in crime, and then you quote some study and I discredit, because it was sponsored by IHATEGUNS.com and I quote some study and you discredit, because it was sponsored by the NRA and round and round we go; that discussion is tedious and I try to avoid it. I would rather focus on the rationale. 

 

As for being a Shepard, without Mr. Browning's glorious 1911, you're not, you're a witness, a victim, or martyr. 

You're treating this like a binary competition. If I view regulations for gun ownership differently, I'm reduced to another ignorant enemy of gun rights. Shit ante black and white, and stinks all the same.

 

I've gone back and forth with you trying to explain my opinion using a rational thought process, my long lasting love of guns, and my choice to store them safely, but carry a big stick instead. I don't based this on "assumptions", defined as things you accept as true or certain, without proof or fact. We have different ways of dealing with uncertainty, so what's the point of arguing who's belief is right or wrong? You have your way, and I have mine. 

 

You change the focus to a hypothetical argument, then say you'd rather focus on the rationale? I agree, this conversation is ridiculous. 

[Ooph!]

2 hours ago, gh0stwerx76 said:

This is worth a listen then. https://youtu.be/JoH0FAWIIT4

cuz this is left leadership intent according to these dudes.

 

Some good insights in that clip.

I used to listen to the John Batchelor radio program and Larry Kudlow would be a frequent commenter, I learned a lot.

[frankendat]

7 hours ago, Logical1 said:

This morning I went to put on some music from youtube and right at that moment my adblock decides to update and I get a commercial, It was the father of a child killed in the sandy hook shooting pleading with people to urge congress to ban assault weapons. He then goes on to describe how the shooter used large magazines as to not need to reload so much. He specifically asks to ban the AR15. Here is my question, Being semi-auto and having the ability to use large magazines does my ancient SKS fall under the assault weapons category? Its an old Russian model with a wooden stock, it jams so much I am lucky to get off a full magazine with having to fuck with it, Maybe that is a built in safety feature?🤣 It could also be the shitty Russian rounds I have with steel casings...

Yup, most would classify the SKS as an assault weapon. There are details that can change the identification, that are important to keep you out of permanent jail/prison, but if a johnny law thinks it looks like one of them "bad" guns and arrests you, then you get the opportunity for the stress and cost of a trial, which if you win, leaves you free and broke and if you lose, leaves you in prison and broke.

If your SKS is one with a milled reliever, then it is worth messing with, and a little work could yield a reliable, but not precise  weapon. If you SKS is one with a stamped receiver, I would sell it. 

"Assault weapon" has been rightfully revealed as anti-gun blanket bullshit, the new liberal bullshit general gun grabbing term is " weapons of war" again it is liberal doublespeak bullshit designed to steal weapons and freedom. 

[a.d._510_n_ok]

 

[frankendat]

3 hours ago, paradime said:

You're treating this like a binary competition. If I view regulations for gun ownership differently, I'm reduced to another ignorant enemy of gun rights.

 

You have your way, and I have mine. 

 

You change the focus to a hypothetical argument, then say you'd rather focus on the rationale? I agree, this conversation is ridiculous. 

I attempt different avenues, because I maintain a foolish hope, that you will understand. It is not a binary competition for you, but it is for me, and others who value freedom and distrust the government.

 

I am more than happy, I would go so far as to say delighted, that you have taken the steps you believe are necessary to protect you and your family. I support and will fight, so that you maintain that freedom. 

 

If my argument and my "side" prevail, then your life, in regards to firearms, remain unchanged. If your argument and your "side" prevail, then regulations, which you are unconcerned, are enacted and your life, in regards to firearms, remains unchanged. For you it is not binary. 

 

If the Democratic party fulfills any of their gun agenda promises, then the cost, complexity, and anxiety of my life will increase exponentially and I personally will feel and be less safe. The kicker is, I guarantee that you personally will not feel any "safer". You won't go strolling down avenues at night that you wouldn't have strolled down.  

 

The truth is that I live in a (thankfully) a red state and you live in a blue state, our electoral votes are forgone conclusions. I type to those with different views, in the vain hope of changing minds, and to determine if in the last decades any new arguments have surfaced. These discussions are difficult in person, because without fail someone will play to the sympathy vote and start whining. 

 

 

 

 

[frankendat]

6 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Why not ban people who are mentally or emotionally retarded and test for cowardliness of police officers when they are hired or stipulate that in a school shooting scenario charge in a stop it. ?

The first is already the law. The second was a disgrace.

[datzenmike]

But isn't mass murder a form of mental illness or retardedness? and don't these people buy their weapons legally?

[frankendat]

35 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

But isn't mass murder a form of mental illness or retardedness? and don't these people buy their weapons legally?

Some have, some have not, determining guilt or innocence is an imperfect and slow process and that is how it should be in a free society. There was a time, not to long ago, that guilt was based on the color of skin, or religion, trading that for a subjective process, or a preemptive or a statistical probability is the same sin. We could discuss problems and solutions, like grownups, but it is easier to demonize and blame weapons. There are thousands, and thousands of firearm regulations and yet, bad things continue to happen. I chose to live in a free country and that means, innocent people, perhaps me or someone I love, could die. Philosophically, I believe I am a thing that exists, I believe in freedom and choice, which I have mentioned puts me at odds with Sam Harris and I have yet to overcome, demonstrating for as pragmatic and analytical as I attempt, I cannot absolve myself of faith.  

The road map to the loss of the 2nd Amendment or more precisely, reinterpretation and regulation of the 2nd Amendment, which yields the same result, is well known and well documented. The steps taken through legislation and political activism have been attempted before in other countries and even in this country. 

If none of this is persuasive, then remember that an armed society is a more polite society, that's nice.  

[frankendat]

On 6/30/2024 at 10:07 AM, IZRL said:

 

I'm talking about things now. I am aware that humans screwed everything up here, nature wise. No matter which way you look at it, for better or for worse. Humans aren't going anywhere so all we can do is do the best we can to coexist.

 

Up until now game and fish have done an ok job of keeping a balance between man and beast here in the states. They put out a limited number of tags to prevent over harvesting while giving hunters a chance to scratch that hunting itch and possibly stock the fridge with some good meat.

 

This introduction of wolves will royally screw this present day human/beast balance. This is what I meant by the "order of things"

 

Old reply remains new--Controlled Hunt results (drawing) I didn't draw. It means much more work and much more luck for meat this year. I have posted this to Destruction before under the Destruction of Idaho. I am far from young, but not old enough for Social Security retirement, anyway, as a wee lad a hunting license meant you could hunt. When I was old enough to hunt my own, you needed a hunting license and a tag, but you could buy more than one tag, and we always had game in the freezer, next, you needed a hunting license and a tag and certain hunts were bucks or bulls and others were does or cows, and some hunts were limited to one buck or bull tag. Then almost all hunts were limited to one tag per species, without regard to sex. Then the State was divided into districts and you had to buy a tag for the hunt, species and animal for the district in which you hunt, we would harvest 70% of the time.  Then you were allowed to only pick a couple of districts, then you were only allowed to pick one district and one tag per species and could not purchase in any other districts, even if you didn't harvest. Somewhere in there controlled lottery draw hunts were born, but it wasn't a big deal, just more money, you had to buy a license, pay to enter a draw, and if you won, then you buy a tag, but we always drew. Then we started drawing less and if you drew but were unsuccessful you were not allowed to hunt that species in any general hunt that year. I am going to skip ahead, because this is depressing when I type it out. Now you choose your district, species, hunt and put in for the draw, there are fewer tags, there are more people entering, the units I have hunted since a boy, where it was general season or no worry draw, this year there was a 4% chance of drawing the privilege of buying a tag. They still are decent units in comparison to others, those who draw have around a 25%-30% success rate. If you draw, whether you are successful or not, you are not allowed to draw the next year. 

And assholes like Elon Musk are going on TV and the internets claiming there isn't enough people. If there is a "team people" I'm not joining without vetting the other side. 

[datzenmike]

9 hours ago, frankendat said:

Some have, some have not, determining guilt or innocence is an imperfect and slow process and that is how it should be in a free society. There was a time, not to long ago, that guilt was based on the color of skin, or religion, trading that for a subjective process, or a preemptive or a statistical probability is the same sin. We could discuss problems and solutions, like grownups, but it is easier to demonize and blame weapons. There are thousands, and thousands of firearm regulations and yet, bad things continue to happen. I chose to live in a free country and that means, innocent people, perhaps me or someone I love, could die. Philosophically, I believe I am a thing that exists, I believe in freedom and choice, which I have mentioned puts me at odds with Sam Harris and I have yet to overcome, demonstrating for as pragmatic and analytical as I attempt, I cannot absolve myself of faith.  

The road map to the loss of the 2nd Amendment or more precisely, reinterpretation and regulation of the 2nd Amendment, which yields the same result, is well known and well documented. The steps taken through legislation and political activism have been attempted before in other countries and even in this country. 

If none of this is persuasive, then remember that an armed society is a more polite society, that's nice.  

 

Guilt???? person goes into a crowded area and opens fire killing several to many, he in turn is killed. Guilt not in doubt but it's (almost always) found later he was mentally deranged or an odd duck but he bought a gun legally.

 

I'm assuming that the act is the act of a madman thus mentally ill?

He was otherwise able to hide his disability enough to purchase a firearm?

He was a normal gun owner but 'snapped'.

The process by which a person is deemed to be mentally unfit to own a gun is too 'soft'.

[Ooph!]

7 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

Guilt???? person goes into a crowded area and opens fire killing several to many, he in turn is killed. Guilt not in doubt but it's (almost always) found later he was mentally deranged or an odd duck but he bought a gun legally.

 

I'm assuming that the act is the act of a madman thus mentally ill?

He was otherwise able to hide his disability enough to purchase a firearm?

He was a normal gun owner but 'snapped'.

The process by which a person is deemed to be mentally unfit to own a gun is too 'soft'.

 

In the coming dystopian future without guns we would have.

"The process by which a person is deemed to be mentally unfit to continue there existence, is too soft"

Already you can see the difference in a society with and without guns.

In Great Britain the Govt says "if you post anything we deem contrarian you will be punished" the citizens say "we comply"

In the USA the Govt says "if you post anything we deem contrarian you will be punished" the citizens say "Fuck You"

Edited August 17 by Ooph!
clarification

[a.d._510_n_ok]